header-logo header-logo

18 September 2015
Issue: 7668 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

Re Z (A Child) [2015] EWFC 73, [2015] All ER (D) 26 (Sep)

The Family Court held that, when s 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provided that, in certain circumstances, the court could make a parental order on the application of “two people”, it was not open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person. Section 54(1) could not be “read down” in accordance with s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to enable that to be done.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll